On the same day that the Megaupload tycoon starred in “MegaChristmas” in Auckland, taking the role of “Santa Dotcom,” a New Zealand TV channel revealed that the NZ government has spent millions of tax dollars going after him, making it likely one of the most expensive cases in the country’s history.

According to documents released to One News under the Official Information Act (analogous to the United States’ Freedom of Information Act), “up to five crown lawyers have spent more than 6,000 hours working on the case. Crown law will not say how much that has cost, but private firms charge up to NZ$600 (US$504) an hour, which would bring the bill to more than NZ$3 million (US$2.5 million).”

It has been nearly a year since the Dotcom mansion was raided by New Zealand law enforcement, who were requested to do so due to federal charges filed against Dotcom in the US.

Since then, Dotcom has fought tooth and nail against his extradition to the United States, and revealed that the NZ justice system screwed up the search warrant and the raid itself. Most recently, the government has allowed Dotcom access to classified intelligence.

UPDATE: Ira Rothken, Kim Dotcom's head global counsel, e-mailed Ars to say: "The Crown lawyers acting on behalf of the US have found themselves in the perfect storm of a bad case and a bad legal theory combined with illegal government conduct and that leads to high legal expenses. The government's serial appeals, stonewalling evidence disclosure, illegal search and seizures, illegal data transfer, and illegal spying doesn't come cheap. Since the Government's only advantage in this case is money and resources they are trying to win a war of attrition but I hope they understand by now that Kim Dotcom and our legal team find this defense worthy and will work hard to achieve justice."

Legal issues aside, during the yuletide performance, Dotcom pokes fun at his own story.

“I was in my mansion playing Call of Duty, and suddenly I heard someone coming down the chimney,” Dotcom reportedly says during the play. “And I was like, ‘Oh my God! Not another raid! Who are you trying to impress this time, [NZ PM] John Key? Steven Spielberg?’”

I must say, before the raid, what little I knew of Kim Dotcom left me wondering what his virtues were. Since then, either he's extraordinarily adept at playing the media or he's shown his virtues in spades.

Likely both are substantially true, but I'm leaning toward the latter. I like the guy now.

This guy really is a larger than life figure, in every way. Echoes of the 20s and 30s.. I know he's not exactly legit, but he's an entertaining character, and you gotta admire that.

Let's be fair. The Hollywood movie studios and various music recording studios aren't completely on the up and up either. The only difference between the Kim Dotcom's of the world and the various studios, is that the studios have decades spent buying politicians and laws to enable their flights of fancy.

Whoa. Lets get real for a second. Here in the States, the DOJ lawyers make ~$120,000 working 55-60 hour work weeks. So roughly $40-45 / hour depending on leave, or $260k for 6k hours of work. Since they are salary, that number only means something if there was something else they would've been working on otherwise for the entire time - if they weren't fully tasked already, there is no marginal cost in using them for the Dotcom case. So if NZ is really spending $2.5 *million* on legal fees, they are profoundly mismanaged.

Whoa. Lets get real for a second. Here in the States, the DOJ lawyers make ~$120,000 working 55-60 hour work weeks. So roughly $40-45 / hour depending on leave, or $260k for 6k hours of work. Since they are salary, that number only means something if there was something else they would've been working on otherwise for the entire time - if they weren't fully tasked already, there is no marginal cost in using them for the Dotcom case. So if NZ is really spending $2.5 *million* on legal fees, they are profoundly mismanaged.

You could make the argument that the DOJ lawyer's time would be best spent on other cases. Still mismanaged, just in another way.

Whoa. Lets get real for a second. Here in the States, the DOJ lawyers make ~$120,000 working 55-60 hour work weeks. So roughly $40-45 / hour depending on leave, or $260k for 6k hours of work. Since they are salary, that number only means something if there was something else they would've been working on otherwise for the entire time - if they weren't fully tasked already, there is no marginal cost in using them for the Dotcom case. So if NZ is really spending $2.5 *million* on legal fees, they are profoundly mismanaged.

Note the estimate is based on the top-end private fees (and may even be based on courtroom time fee rather than background fee), so is likely significantly higher than the actual cost to the government. If nothing else, using the average hourly charge would normally be more sensible. Also (question) are they talking NZ$, not US?

Re: Pleasestandby - are you kidding? The auditorium was probably PACKED with reporters.

They're always surprised when someone's ready to fight back. Wonder if this will make NZ more hesitant to cooperate in these types of hollywood battles in the future? (Maybe they said The Hobbit couldn't be made there if they didnt' help?)

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

There was a story about how a Neo Nazi elected himself into office in some town because he was the only one running for a spot and he voted for himself. Would you still say the "people" voted for him?

No NZ needs to eat it. Their government could have told the US Dept of Justice to shove off. The NZ government could have at least drawn up a proper warrant and not gone Taliban-Buster's Inc. on someone accused of simple copyright infringement. Let the people of NZ hold their government responsible for this folly, and let the politicians there get their just reward.

My guess, if NZ's populace is anything like the US, this indiscretion will go mostly ignored by the largely ignorant and apathetic public, with only a few tech heads actually willing to vote against incumbents.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

I like this Comment.I so hate my US Government I can think of a big amount of the Politicians there who need to be Tarred & Feathered in Public Humiliation.I am so sick of their lying bullshit and I really hate the whole MAFIAA Industries.I want to see them fail ! I want the MAFIAA to die the death they deserve.Hollywood was founded by "Pirates" and their whole Industry is based upon Greed, Lies, and Stealing from us Consumers.Kim Dotcom is now my hero.He may not be a Saint but he is a human being.He is fighting a good fight.Go KD Go !!!

There was a story about how a Neo Nazi elected himself into office in some town because he was the only one running for a spot and he voted for himself. Would you still say the "people" voted for him?

Unfortunately we can't vote against people.

yes because not voting is still a vote, I would probably classify it as somewhere under spoiling the ballot, because spoiling takes a bit more effort. If no one cares enough about the only person running and what they stand for / believe in / who they are, then I think it's fair to say the person elected as the representative for the community can be seen as the representative for that community.

EDIT: Failed to include the post I was responding to in the original, added for clarification.

yes because not voting is still a vote, I would probably classify it as somewhere under spoiling the ballot, because spoiling takes a bit more effort. If no one cares enough about the only person running and what they stand for / believe in / who they are, then I think it's fair to say the person elected as the representative for the community can be seen as the representative for that community.

Isn't that the same logic as saying "The North Korean people outnumber their government, if they wanted, they could over-throw the government. Since they don't do so, they much like their government."

Voting is multiple choice. If there aren't enough choices, then it is impossible to represent the people.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

Rather funny you think who we elect has any bearing on any of this. It doesn't matter who we elect because Hollywood and big corporations have bought the government as a whole. Changing any one or even a handful of people in office makes no difference on crap like this. Nothing short of a revolution will change anything at this point.

Isn't that the same logic as saying "The North Korean people outnumber their government, if they wanted, they could over-throw the government. Since they don't do so, they much like their government."

Voting is multiple choice. If there aren't enough choices, then it is impossible to represent the people.

Not at all, see in this case you took my words and stretched them out of context. There is always a choice in a democratic society, including the choice to run yourself.However North Korea is different, you know, being a non democratic society (simply meaning their leaders are appointed instead of elected). Being appointed means that while you may be in charge of everyone, you don't have to answer to them when you do something they don't agree with. Regular North Korean citizens have no choice in the matter of who their leader is, so in short, no my quote was not the same as you led it out to be.

Let's be fair. The Hollywood movie studios and various music recording studios aren't completely on the up and up either. The only difference between the Kim Dotcom's of the world and the various studios, is that the studios have decades spent buying politicians and laws to enable their flights of fancy.

Dotcom employs six people, produces nothing of value, and makes all his money without paying the people who produced the content one cent.

So no, the difference is that Kim Dotcom is without redeeming quality. If you like him, then you're a sucker.

Tobacco companies also make products, and employ thousands of people. Does that mean they have redeeming qualities and are morally better than Mega-upload?

You also assume that Hollywood creates anything of value, which is very subjective. Some people find more value in a service like Mega-upload than the trash (propaganda) Hollywood produces.

I personally don't find value in either, which is why I don't watch/buy movies or use cloud services. I store all by data locally, and spend my money on better entertainment options. But saying just because someone produces a product and employs thousands of people, they are somehow better or more morally just than someone who doesn't, seems odd when lots of companies do that while hurting a lot more people than Mega-upload ever did.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

There was a story about how a Neo Nazi elected himself into office in some town because he was the only one running for a spot and he voted for himself. Would you still say the "people" voted for him?

Unfortunately we can't vote against people.

Yes you can - you americans voted back in the republicans to control congress - you made that choice last election and thus you only have yourself to blame for the resulting clusterfuck that came from it.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

I literally wish I could upvote this comment more than once, that's how much I agree with the sentiment! WIth all its faults, the US is still a democratic country in most ways and it does have free elections. The people currently in power HAVE indeed been voted there by a majority of pople who voted. The way to get them out of there is to vote for somebody else next time. You can say "well, but all candidates are in the pockets of big media". You know what, perhaps the time has come to realise that in US too there are more than two political parties, like in the rest of the free world.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

I literally wish I could upvote this comment more than once, that's how much I agree with the sentiment! WIth all its faults, the US is still a democratic country in most ways and it does have free elections. The people currently in power HAVE indeed been voted there by a majority of pople who voted. The way to get them out of there is to vote for somebody else next time. You can say "well, but all candidates are in the pockets of big media". You know what, perhaps the time has come to realise that in US too there are more than two political parties, like in the rest of the free world.

As a US citizen, I too agree with your sentiment. The problem is that copyright legislation, patent law, internet law and regulation, and everything else you see at Ars really is a niche place in our politics right now. In a nutshell, the vast majority of our citizen's are arguing over whether or not our country should still operate like it is the 1950's. I am pretty sure if you went up to any random person in the US and told them about this whole Kim Dotcom ordeal and that we should get our government to change it's behavior, they would say something like "We don't have time for that now, we need jobs!". Essentially, don't look to the US to change our policy on copyright regimes for a good while, because most people who vote don't know or don't care. Do remember that one of the two major parties just lost the presidential election because it thought it could win by only (pretty much) going for the votes of old, white men. That right there is your indication of US politics right now.

Isn't that the same logic as saying "The North Korean people outnumber their government, if they wanted, they could over-throw the government. Since they don't do so, they much like their government."

Voting is multiple choice. If there aren't enough choices, then it is impossible to represent the people.

Not at all, see in this case you took my words and stretched them out of context. There is always a choice in a democratic society, including the choice to run yourself.However North Korea is different, you know, being a non democratic society (simply meaning their leaders are appointed instead of elected). Being appointed means that while you may be in charge of everyone, you don't have to answer to them when you do something they don't agree with. Regular North Korean citizens have no choice in the matter of who their leader is, so in short, no my quote was not the same as you led it out to be.

Abstract of what you said: Lack of action means agreement. (Not voting)Abstract of what I said: Lack of action means agreement. (Not revolting)

Yes, what I said was the same.

"there is always a choice in a democratic society"

Every society has the choice to fight its government. You didn't understand what I said, not me not understanding you.

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

There was a story about how a Neo Nazi elected himself into office in some town because he was the only one running for a spot and he voted for himself. Would you still say the "people" voted for him?

Unfortunately we can't vote against people.

Yes you can - you americans voted back in the republicans to control congress - you made that choice last election and thus you only have yourself to blame for the resulting clusterfuck that came from it.

Voting in the USA is election by a vocal minority. Most everyone hates the government and doesn't like any of the choices. Heck, only 57% voter turnout for 2012 presidential elections.

CNN: "Why your vote for Congress might not matter: he process that determines voting districts results in "almost rigged" elections and is the reason why Congress is polarized"

Yes, the US tax payers. After all it was your government that orchestrated this and they should be held accountable for their decisions by the people who elect them. Yes the lobbyists are the driving force behind this, but the politicians are the ones pulling the trigger.

There was a story about how a Neo Nazi elected himself into office in some town because he was the only one running for a spot and he voted for himself. Would you still say the "people" voted for him?

Unfortunately we can't vote against people.

Yes you can - you americans voted back in the republicans to control congress - you made that choice last election and thus you only have yourself to blame for the resulting clusterfuck that came from it.

Is this in reference to Hollywood controlling congress? Because they have both sides of the aisle in their pockets.

Yes you can - you americans voted back in the republicans to control congress - you made that choice last election and thus you only have yourself to blame for the resulting clusterfuck that came from it.

What have Republicans (in Congress especially) got to do with Kim Dotcom?

It was pretty easy to tell the case against MegaUpload was giant crock when the only articles that came out early on for the most part were character assassination articles talking about how horrible of a human being Kim Dotcom is supposed to be. If you have a solid case and plenty of evidence you don't have to resort to fluff pieces that tell you how horrible a person is, just show us the evidence and it should speak for itself...

I could go on about the evils of the recording industry of america and the motion picture assosciation, but at this point that's kind of like beating an already mutilated and dead horse.